At 02:27 PM 7/20/2006, Jerome & Elizabeth Moos wrote:
>There seems to be one school of thought that the 753 "test" was as
>much a publicity stunt by Reynolds as a sincere attempt at quality
>control. In some sense one wonders about 753 in general. Was the
>idea that this tubeset was so thin-walled that it needed heat
>treating to achieve adequate tensile strength? If so, maybe it was
>just a bad idea, as it defeats two of the major benefits of steel
>frames, durability and repairability. Even if one could insure that
>the original builder didn't overheat the tubing, there is no way to
>control the repairs made after a crash. In my view, it's better
>just to make the walls a little thicker than rely on heat
>treating. But that was the day of the superlightweight craze.
Excellent post Jerry. One thing to remember is 753 is just a material (heat treated 531) not necessarily a tube set. It came in different wall thicknesses and later in different diameters. Given the nature of this list, most people are remembering the very early versions of 753. That stuff was too thin. Reynolds learned the hard way and thickened up the tubes. The 753 test was both a publicity stunt and a sincere attempt at quality control. It certainly worked and least the first part did. The testing caused a stir and got consumers attention. That sold bikes. As far as the quality control issue, heck they passed a hack like me so what does that tell you?
Curt Goodrich
Minneapolis, MN